Adobe Foundation. (2011). Adobe Youth Voices celebrates year two of its partnership with the Black Eyed Peas, Peapod Foundation Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://youthvoices.adobe.com/peapod/
2.
AllenI. E., & SeamanJ.. (2010). Class difference$: Online education in the United States. Boston, MA: Sloan Consortium.
3.
BenedictC. (2011). “Free as in speech, but not free as in beer”: The performativity of the U.S. national standards. Studies in Music, 23, 1–19.
BrophyP. C., & GodsilR. D. (2009). Retooling HUD for a catalytic federal government: A report to Secretary Shaun Donovan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Penn Institute for Urban Research.
Center on Education Policy. (2005). NCLB: Narrowing the curriculum? (No. 3). Washington, DC: Author.
9.
Center on Education Policy. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Author.
10.
Coalition for Music Education in Canada. (2008a). Concepts & skills for pre-kindergarten to Grade 8: Achieving musical understanding (Revised ed.). Agincourt, Ontario, Canada: Author.
11.
Coalition for Music Education in Canada. (2008b). Concepts and skills for Grade 9 to graduation: Achieving musical understanding (Revised ed.). Agincourt, Ontario, Canada: Author.
12.
Coalition for Music Education in Canada. (2008c). Guidelines for quality music education: Programs, facilities and resources (Revised ed.). Agincourt, Ontario, Canada: Author.
13.
Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National standards for arts education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.
EllisonJ., & EatmanT. K. (2008). Scholarship in public: Knowledge creation and tenure policy in the engaged university. Syracuse, NY: Imagining America.
17.
ElpusK., & AbrilC. R. (2011). High school music ensemble students in the United States: A demographic profile. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 128–145.
18.
GauthierN. (2003, September). Crisis or opportunity?La Scena Musicale, 9, 26–29.
19.
GuideStar. (2011). Music National Service Initiative. Unpublished report, GuideStar USA.
20.
HallJ. (1996). The revolution in electronic technology and the modern university: The convergence of means. In EvansT. & NationD. (Ed.), Opening education: Policies and practices from open and distance education (pp. 7–20). London: Routledge.
21.
Hanover Research Council. (2008). Responsibility center management at major public universities: Washington, DC: Author.
HorsleyS. (2009). The politics of public accountability: Implications for centralized music education policy development and implementation. Arts Education Policy Review, 110(4), 6–12.
25.
HorsleyS. (2011). The politics of curriculum: A critical history of the development, implementation and delivery of Ontario's 1998 elementary music curriculum (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
26.
HowardJ. (2011, May 13). Tomorrow's academic libraries: Maybe even some books. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com
27.
HowdenL. M., & MeyerJ. A. (2011). Age and sex composition: 2010. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.
28.
HumesK. R., JonesN. A., & RamirezR. R. (2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.
29.
Imagining America. (n.d.). Imagining America: Artists and scholars in public life. Retrieved July 3, 2011, from http://www.imaginingamerica.org
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. (2011). Digital music report 2011: Music at the touch of a button. London, England: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2011.pdf
32.
JenningsJ., & RentnerD. S. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
33.
JonesP. M. (2005). Moving forward with focus. PMEA News, 70(2), 22–30.
Kassell BenedictC. L. (2004). Chasing legitimacy: The national music standards viewed through a critical theorist framework (Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation). Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.
McManusD. (2010). Adaptistration: Drew McManus on the orchestra business. The Orchestra Compensation Reports. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from http://www.adaptistration.com
National Association of Music Merchants. (2009). NAMM global report: A statistical review of the music products industry: Featuring Music USA. Carlsbad, CA: NAMM, the International Music Products Association.
41.
National Endowment for the Arts. (2009). Arts participation 2008: Highlights from a national survey. Washington, DC: Author.
42.
National Endowment for the Arts. (2010). Audience 2.0: How technology influences arts participation. Washington, DC: Author.
43.
NaylorC. (2011). 21st century learning: Widening the frame of focus and debate: A BCTF Research discussion paper. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation.
44.
Netter Center for Community Partnerships. (2008). Anchor institutions toolkit: A guide for neighborhood revitalization. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
45.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004). Partnership for 21st Century Skills Retrieved June 28, 2011, from http://www.p21.org/index.php
46.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2010). 21st century skills map: The arts. Tucson, AZ: Author.
47.
PiccianoA. G., & SeamanJ. (2009). K-12 online learning: A 2008 follow-up of the Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. Boston, MA: Sloan Consortium.
48.
Public Law 111-13 Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act § Subtitle C; Section 1302; Section 122(a)(1)(B)(xii) (2009).
49.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
50.
RobertsB. A. (1991). A place to play: The social world of university schools of music. St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada: Memorial University of Newfoundland.
51.
RosenJ. (2009). New audience research findings (memorandum). New York: League of American Orchestras.